Very Computer

Source: http://www.pcweek.com

                        October 8, 1996 6:00 PM ET
                        Reorganization at
                        IBM software division
                        By Norvin Leach

    -------------------------------------------------------------------

              IBM's Personal Software Products division this
              week announced that it had reorganized and
              split into three business units that are more
              aligned to IBM's new focus on network
              computing.

              Donn Atkins, vice president of the Austin,
              Texas, division, said that the three units will
              handle the planning, marketing and sales of
              OS/2, new technology and embedded systems, and
              network computing. The development teams are
              being organized along roughly similar lines.

              Atkins said that the reorganization did not
              bring any dramatic changes and IBM will not
              lose any employees as a result.

              The OS/2 unit will be responsible for moving
              Warp products and customers into the division's
              new network computing model. Jeff Smith will
              lead the unit.

              The new technology and embedded systems unit
              will support the Automatic Teller Machine
              market, which is currently dominated by OS/2,
              as well as other new areas of Internet and
              intranet support. Atkins is currently acting
              director of the unit.

              The network computing unit will work on OS/2
              support for network and Internet technology
              such as Net.Commerce and Java. Sandy Rankin
              will lead the unit.

    Copyright (c) 1996 Ziff-Davis Publishing Company. All rights
    reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part in any form or medium
    without express written permission of Ziff-Davis Publishing
    Company is prohibited. PC Week and the PC Week logo are
    trademarks of Ziff-Davis Publishing Company. PC Week Online and
    the PC Week Online logo are trademarks of Ziff-Davis Publishing
    Company.

    JF

-----------------------------------------------------------
"At the present rate of technological development, even the
future is obsolete."
                     Bob Levy
                     Enterprise Systems Journal
-----------------------------------------------------------

:
:               IBM's Personal Software Products division this
:               week announced that it had reorganized and
:               split into three business units that are more
:               aligned to IBM's new focus on network
:               computing.
:              
:               <snip>
:
:               [1] The OS/2 unit will be responsible for moving
:               Warp products and customers into the division's
:               new network computing model.
:
:               <snip>
:
:               [2] The new technology and embedded systems unit
:               will support <snip>
:               new areas of Internet and
:               intranet support.
:
:               <snip>
:
:               [3] The network computing unit will work on OS/2
:               support for network and Internet technology

Oh good. So IBM will support os/2 in three areas: (1) networking, (2)
Internet and networking, and (3) networking and Internet.

Am I missing any subtleties here?

Stuart

+-----
| Oh good. So IBM will support os/2 in three areas: (1) networking, (2)
| Internet and networking, and (3) networking and Internet.
| Am I missing any subtleties here?
+--->8

Probably... IBM isn't known for communicating its intentions in a meaningful
manner.

IBM is going network/Internet in a big way.  No surprise that OS/2 is being
changed into a network/Internet platform.

I would read their subdivisions as:

(1) reworking existing technology and customer base for the new model;
(2) OS/2 as NC operating system (!!! --- ATMs aren't all *that* different);
(3) developing and implementing new networking/Internet technologies.

--

So what is really new there?

Rgds,

Chris

Famous People on Operating Systems (Please feel free to contribute)
Edgar Allen Poe, writing a poem when his PC crashed---
"Microsoft, nevermore, nevermore."
President Roosevelt, during the day Windows 95 is launched---
"This day shall live in infamy."

+-----
| OS/2 has been a networking/terminal platform since day one, and OS/2 has been an
| internet platform since Warp.
| So what is really new there?
+--->8

Intent.  OS/2 (from IBM, not from MS) was, on Day One, "The Integrating
Platform".  The idea was to be `a better everything than everything else',
all in one package; witness the effort spent on MDOS and Win-OS/2.  This
was also the driving force behind the now defunct "Workplace OS" concept.

IBM has admitted that this was a mistake (while talking about what happened
to "Workplace OS").  They basically said that the market couldn't get a
handle on the idea.

The "new OS/2" replaces the "Integrating Platform" concept with a new one:
OS/2 is primarily the "Internet Platform".  If it were still the "Integrating
Platform", we'd see IBM hard at work on Win32 binary support; instead, we
see *source level* support to encourage porting from Win32, Java support to
encourage cross-platform/Internet applications, and a de-emphasis on binary
compatibility.  Since OS/2 is already strong in the area of networking, IBM
can capitalize on that strength to push OS/2:  where the "Integrating
Platform" got confused looks from potential buyers, everyone knows what an
"Internet Platform" is.

In short, it's not so much a product change as a *marketing* change.

--

KF8NH)13 Oct 1996 12:53:08 -0400 writes:
:>

:>+-----
:>| OS/2 has been a networking/terminal platform since day one, and OS/2 has been an
:>| internet platform since Warp.
:>| So what is really new there?
:>+--->8
:>
:>Intent.  OS/2 (from IBM, not from MS) was, on Day One, "The Integrating
:>Platform".  The idea was to be `a better everything than everything else',
:>all in one package; witness the effort spent on MDOS and Win-OS/2.  This
:>was also the driving force behind the now defunct "Workplace OS" concept.
:>
:>IBM has admitted that this was a mistake (while talking about what happened
:>to "Workplace OS").  They basically said that the market couldn't get a
:>handle on the idea.

Ever the excuse of lame marketers towards failure. ("We're just too hip for
the room.")

:>
:>The "new OS/2" replaces the "Integrating Platform" concept with a new one:
:>OS/2 is primarily the "Internet Platform".  If it were still the "Integrating
:>Platform", we'd see IBM hard at work on Win32 binary support; instead, we
:>see *source level* support to encourage porting from Win32, Java support to
:>encourage cross-platform/Internet applications, and a de-emphasis on binary
:>compatibility.  Since OS/2 is already strong in the area of networking, IBM
:>can capitalize on that strength to push OS/2:  where the "Integrating
:>Platform" got confused looks from potential buyers, everyone knows what an
:>"Internet Platform" is.

Well, duh. (Not you, Brandon, *them*, those bozos who haven't figured that out
*yet*, much less two years ago.) With as much money as IBM had to throw at the
media, they could have employed topnotch communicators instead of the gassy
political ad-hacks they used (to make it fail on purpose, the way it looks to
me.)

:>
:>In short, it's not so much a product change as a *marketing* change.

Exactly. May I suggest a campaign based on new unified slogan,  "OS/2 from
IBM: It just *ing works better."
        ("Nice earthy ring to it, JB. Probably translates okay internationally. But
it's your call.")

And then, at the point of a pink slip, force everybody in the PSP division, or
whatever new color they plan to paint it, to live up to that
clearly-enunciated standard.
        ("FILE|OPEN|MYRESUME.TXT")

I don't think they'd be able to use the nuns again, however.
        ("Pink slip the nuns. Besides, those damn wimples always gave me the
willies.")

Or maybe they should, now that I think about it seriously.
        ("No, wait. Call them back before they get out the gate.")

Good luck, and may the good lord take a likin' to ya,

Buddy

Buddy Donnelly


--------------------------
Official IBM Spokesman: Opinions expressed here are always official IBM dogma.
Except when they are right.
-------------------------

Quote:>And then, at the point of a pink slip, force everybody in the PSP division, or
>whatever new color they plan to paint it, to live up to that
>clearly-enunciated standard.
>    ("FILE|OPEN|MYRESUME.TXT")

>I don't think they'd be able to use the nuns again, however.
>    ("Pink slip the nuns. Besides, those damn wimples always gave me the
>willies.")

>Or maybe they should, now that I think about it seriously.
>    ("No, wait. Call them back before they get out the gate.")

>Good luck, and may the good lord take a likin' to ya,

>Buddy

Perhaps, IBM should make an article in the National Enquirer.  "Evidence: OS/2
sightings reveal that OS/2 is not dead."  "We have seen the next version of
OS/2, witnesses say, and it looks great!".  Give it the Elvis is still alive
spin.  Give it a fuzzy retouched shot of a new OS/2 desktop like they do with
UFO photos.  "I couldn't believe it until I saw it" says the local sheriff. Then
a sideline here "OS/2 equipped ATM catches local thief using video camera!"

If John W. Thompson says "We will *ing support OS/2 till Hell freezes over!"
I'm sure it will catch the world's attention and maybe the world's belief.

Rgds,

Chris

 >Buddy Donnelly

Quote:

>If John W. Thompson says "We will *ing support OS/2 till Hell freezes over!"
>I'm sure it will catch the world's attention and maybe the world's belief.

        John W. Thompson indicates OS/2 support to be dropped.

(Conveniently leaving out the part about hell freezing over.)

Quote:>Chris

[RJ]                 OS/2 - Live it, or live with it.
rj friedman          Team ABW              

________________________________________________________

+-----

| KF8NH)13 Oct 1996 12:53:08 -0400 writes:
| :>Intent.  OS/2 (from IBM, not from MS) was, on Day One, "The Integrating
| :>Platform".  The idea was to be `a better everything than everything else',
| :>all in one package; witness the effort spent on MDOS and Win-OS/2.  This
| :>was also the driving force behind the now defunct "Workplace OS" concept.
| :>IBM has admitted that this was a mistake (while talking about what happened
| :>to "Workplace OS").  They basically said that the market couldn't get a
| :>handle on the idea.
| Ever the excuse of lame marketers towards failure. ("We're just too hip for
| the room.")
+--->8

Am I to take it that you *really*, *really* want an excuse to dump OS/2?
Or just really, really want a reason to rant?  If the latter, let me know
so I know to ignore you.  I don't have the spare time to post responses to
whiners.  (If the former, just subscribe to the next McGraw-Hill or CMP rag
you see.  You'll get more "reasons" than anyone could hope for.)

WorkPlace OS was a microkernel and system services, with multiple personality
modules (APIs/ABIs, user interfaces, etc.).  OS/2 was intended to evolve
into this platform.  The problem being, only the tech types really appreciate
such an idea; most people didn't believe even seamless Win-OS/2 was possible
until IBM did it, how do you think they'd react to seamless MacOS or AIX on
the same platform?

WPOS was what didn't go over.  But it was the vision of OS/2's future, so
when WPOS sank OS/2 needed a new direction.  Your argument is with long-term
strategic planners, not marketing.

| :>can capitalize on that strength to push OS/2:  where the "Integrating
| :>Platform" got confused looks from potential buyers, everyone knows what an
| :>"Internet Platform" is.
| Well, duh. (Not you, Brandon, *them*, those bozos who haven't figured that out
| *yet*, much less two years ago.) With as much money as IBM had to throw at the
| media, they could have employed topnotch communicators instead of the gassy
+--->8

Ahem.  WPOS was *not* sent through the media.  Deliberately.

This may come as a shock to you, despite all of IBM's actions and all their
announcements all the way back to the original announcement for OS/2 1.0,
but OS/2 has always been targeted by IBM primarily at IBM's biggest customers,
*not* at the SOHO market or us computer geek types.  (Microsoft had wider
ambitions, but when don't they?  And when IBM proved correct, they bailed
out in short order.)

WPOS was presented to --- and, reportedly, shot down by --- not the "media"
who are only useful in attempting to communicate with the market in general,
but directly to the decision makers at the target corporations in the Fortune
100.  If it had flown with them, IBM might well have proceeded to the media
to gain general support for it; but if IBM's primary customer base for the
proposed product wasn't interested, IBM wasn't going to waste any more time
or effort on it.

Note that we are not talking about a product, or even a planned product; we
are talking about a concept.  It is perfectly reasonable (unless you consider
decision-by-sound-bite "reasonable") to float a concept with its intended
market before presenting it as a product or dedicating resources to it.

With WPOS dead, OS/2 was a product without a "future" (in the sense that it
had nothing to evolve into).  This may have contributed to the failure of
PPC OS/2, since it was a step toward the defunct WPOS.  Perhaps this lack of
vision is what resulted in PSP going effectively silent until JWT took over
and came up with a new vision for the future of OS/2.

<rant>

So now we're starting to see the shape of that future --- and I, for one,
am seeing a lot of computer geek types getting their noses rubbed in the
fact that they are *not* the focus and purpose of OS/2.  And b*tching about
that rather disillusioning (to them) fact.

Maybe it's time you folks grew up and recognized that if PSP had to depend
on *us* to buy enough OS/2 to keep them afloat, they would have failed long
ago.  The Fortune 100 is what keeps OS/2 going, and the Fortune 100 therefore
drives OS/2 development.  Not to mention OS/2 marketing.

</rant>

Do I like not being important to IBM?  In one sense, no.  In a larger sense,
it is irrelevant:  I'm not particularly important to Sybase, Unify, Sun,
Dell, or any other of the companies whose products I use regularly, either.
If their products aren't marketed to me but they do what I need, I use them
without whining about the companies should revolve around me.

OS/2 does what I need.  If it should stop doing what I need, I will switch
to something else that does.  (Windows 95 and Windows NT don't, so M$ is
out a customer regardless.  Speaking of not caring about me as a customer...)

--

+-----
| Chris, Buddy, Brandon, those are all good ideas, some may not be
+--->8

Correction:  I didn't suggest any marketing ideas.  I tried to explain my
view of IBM's take on the situation.

The fundamental problem is that *we*, as "low end" OS/2 users, expect to see
IBM advertizing appropriately for us.  But IBM's OS/2 division doesn't see
us as the market.  IBM sees the Fortune 100 as the market, and adopts the
low-key, conservative approach to that market.  This means little in the
way of media exposure and a lot of *direct* presentations to that market:
not covered by journalists, not advertized, just the bosses at IBM PSP
having closed meetings with the bosses of F100 companies.  Nothing inspiring
to *us*, but if it sells $30B/year as reported it obviously works for that
market.

*Could* some marketing campaign make OS/2 a clear success at the non-F100
level?  I don't know; I stay out of that variety of marketing, I know from
experience that I don't have a clue about marketing.  :-)  Telotech has
success marketing our products and services (not to the F100, of course!)
directly in the way IBM markets OS/2 directly:  it's not *, but it does
the job.

I can't speak for the print ad you saw; it *does* sound like an attempt to
bring the same low-key, conservative image to advertizing... and as such it
seems to me that it is pretty much doomed to failure these days.  But I
can't claim to know the details of how the minds of F100 purchasers work;
maybe the ads do strike home where IBM wants them to, and deter those IBM
would rather not have to deal with (IBM knows the rules in the F100, for
the rather obvious reason that they play by the same rules).

| 1) people can't relate to the stealth. It's an interesting image but not
| part of anyone's consciousness.   Use a tricycle and Mercedes SLC or
| Cadillac Catera or a F1 race car or an NHRA AA fuel dragster.
+--->8

I don't think they're supposed to.  I think the ad is angling for those who
see the Stealth as a picture of power... hmmm, could the target audience
be defense contractors?

Again, I suspect IBM is targeting a *very* specific audience with those ads.
They aren't intended for us.  Which should not be surprising when IBM has
repeatedly said that they are not marketing OS/2 to us.

The whole issue boils down to:  if IBM does $30B/year in OS/2-related
business, who is buying it?  Not us:  we don't have $30B/year to spend on
it.  IBM is moving to keep NT4 out of the markets that *are* spending that
money; I would expect that to be paramount for the next few months.  Once
that market has been secured against NT, we may see a more general push
from IBM --- but for now, I don't find it at all surprising that IBM is
digging in to defend its *successful* markets against an interloper instead
of marching off to invade new markets while Bill Gates is targeting those
markets that have kept OS/2 going.

--

IBM's software sales are around 14 billion. That includes all software
platforms. Does your 30 billion dollar number include hardware as well?
--
Edward N. Leger
The TruthMan has arrived!!!!!

Quote:>The fundamental problem is that *we*, as "low end" OS/2 users, expect to see
>IBM advertizing appropriately for us.  But IBM's OS/2 division doesn't see
>us as the market.  IBM sees the Fortune 100 as the market, and adopts the
>low-key, conservative approach to that market.  This means little in the
>way of media exposure and a lot of *direct* presentations to that market:
>not covered by journalists, not advertized, just the bosses at IBM PSP
>having closed meetings with the bosses of F100 companies.  Nothing inspiring
>to *us*, but if it sells $30B/year as reported it obviously works for that
>market.

*bong-bong-bong*  Wake up IBM, it's 1996.  Mainframes fit in attache
cases, virtual corporations exist, a fireman in Western Maryland is
wiring his house for 10base2, and 10 year old kids use ColorWorks to
entertain themselves.  Change happens real fast now.  Decisions aren't
just being pushed down the enterprise, the enterprise is dissociating
into autonomous units.

Next year, you may not be able to find a CIO/CIO staff to market to.
The year after that, the entire corporation may disolve into independent
profit centers and they may rightsize themselves into a few million
bytes of executable.

An aside: While corporations are required to have addresses and human
officers, is there anything real about that requirement?  Could I create
an entire virtual corporation with no human beings, no assets, and no
real world manefestation?  Could I move a corporation completely into
*space (it would be OS/2), do business electronicly through
surrogages?

   ... re IBM's ad showing the stealth bomber ...

Quote:

>I don't think they're supposed to.  I think the ad is angling for those who
>see the Stealth as a picture of power... hmmm, could the target audience
>be defense contractors?

They even run complementary TV ads.  You regularly see helicopter
commercials, the stealth bomber zooming around.   You'd think that a
billion dollar weapons system would be sold the same way IBM sells a
million dollar mainframe or (according to this thread, a half million
dollar enterprise lan roll out.)  But nooooo.   You can be watching a
sitcom and just as the laugh-track ends, patriotic music starts, that
announcer with the deep voice starts talking about how it's still a
dangerous world out there, and you see a big bomber zooming around.

Quote:>Again, I suspect IBM is targeting a *very* specific audience with those
ads.
>They aren't intended for us.  Which should not be surprising when IBM has
>repeatedly said that they are not marketing OS/2 to us.

I believe that IBM is making a big mistake.